Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central massive object


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Central massive object

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a stub article about a term that is not commonly used in astronomy. If we want to mention it at all, a sentence or two on the supermassive black hole or nuclear star cluster would be enough. Parejkoj (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term isn't in common use, but it does have long-standing use in cases where the nature of the central object cannot be distinguished. For example, Martin Rees used it in 1978 and it's been recommended by some well cited 21st century papers    . ESO used the term as the title of conference in 2010  so it seems accepted by the research community. A full-text search on ADS shows ~900 sources using the phrase (or the slight variant 'central supermassive object'). The article certainly could do with further expansion, but it's not useless. Modest Genius talk 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is somewhat misleading because the term can refer to a massive object at the center of a globular cluster, or a star hidden in an accretion disk. Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term itself does have any specific meaning beyound: "a massive object in the center of something". This is just a dictionary definition. There is no need for this article. Ruslik_ Zero 20:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: this seems like a sort of borderline case. The concept of CMO is not particularly important in and of itself in astronomy since it’s just a term for "massive thing in a galaxy center that could be either a black hole or a star cluster", but the term has been used in enough papers in the research literature that there’s a case to be made that the concept of a CMO has some notability. It would seem to satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTDICT in that it refers to a concept that the article title can denote, and although the article is a short stub it contains more than just a dictionary definition. On that basis I would lean towards keeping this one, but just barely. Aldebarium (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have to agree with previous commenters, due to the scholarly articles] on the topic, as noted by Modest Genius, this topic has notability, even if it isn't important in anf of itself in astronomy as Aldebarium notes.71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.